How does this make sense that they have a higher pet score? I have more unique, 195 at max lvl compared to 19, higher % of rares, higher avg pet level. The difference? I keep more duplicates, so they make the percentages of other qualities higher. Why are we penalized on pet score for duplicates?

We're in the process of hotfixing the scores so that duplicate pets have NO BEARING on the overall stats or pet score (aside from the total unique and duplicate counts). That way the system can't be exploited with high level duplicates and people won't be penalized for lower level duplicates.

This is one of the reasons we chose not to rerank based on score just yet -- gives us time to evaluate and make sure the formula is fair.

Selserene wrote:I really appreciate all the care and work you put into this site. Thank you for looking.

Same users score:Pet Score2280

My Pet Score2274

No problem.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. The gap is tighter.

The reason this person is still ahead is due to the quality portion of their score. Uncommon pets are worth 2pts each and this user has 28 more uncommons than you, while you have more poors (0pts) and commons (1pt each). If you get upgrades for just 7 of your poor pets, you'll pull ahead.

Remember -- pet score was designed to reward all facets of pet collecting, from rare-hunting to pet-leveling. So the shear number of pets you have isn't always going to put you on top.

Avarre wrote:But she has a lot more high lvl pets doesnt she? A huge load more infact.

Not necessarily. You're looking at the "Pets at the Max Level" stat. That is only showing the number of level 25s. Their average pet levels are actually quite close. So she might not have as many level 25s, but still could have a bunch that are 20+.

In addition, the number of pets at level 25 has no bearing on pet score -- only the average level does. This was done to avoid possible exploits and keep everyone on a level playing field.

Avarre wrote:Hmm ok, understood but she does have 5 more rares then the other guy.

Sure -- rares are worth 3pts each. Let's assume the other person has the same exact pets, but as uncommons (not a hard assumption to make with so many uncommons in the collection). Uncommons are 2pts each. So that would be a net gain of only 5pts total -- easily surpassed by the number of uncommons vs. poors and commons collected by Selserene.

By no means am I trying to hijack this post, so please feel free to move my post if you should feel it does not belong here This is just another query about Pet scores... How about some way to compare your own score to the rest of the warcraftpets community? Something like http :// stas.sh/lastfm/stats. html?

Sorry for the crappy URL. I dont have 8 posts yet, and I dont feel like paking 7 other posts just to ask this question

I think using the levels of pets in the formula the way it's done is still open to exploiting.

The formula equalizes one step to next level no matter what the level is. So one step from level 1 -> 2 is equal to one step from level 24 -> 25. For effort involved in leveling it's a lot more desirable to level a lot of pets on low level than doing the high level ones. As power-leveling lvl 2-3 pet to level 10 takes more or less the same effort as leveling from 24 -> 25, the gain in one case is 7-8 levels, in other case 1 level, and 7-8 levels increase average a lot more than 1 level.

This could be addressed by weighting the exp requirements for levels with the average pet level more or less like Wowprogress does. Total lvl 1 -> lvl 25 exp is 23900. At level 5 only 2% exp has been acquired, at level 10 13%, lvl 15 33%, lvl 20 62% (see Pet_Battle_System#Leveling @ Wowwiki for all level exp). If this exp info is added to the equation it would take away the possibility to manipulate with the average level numbers – leveling low or high level pet gives more or less the same gain in the Pet Score for the same level of effort.

We're fairly happy with how the scores have been working out (and we've been monitoring them closely). The reason I'm not so concerned about the issue you've mentioned is because pet level isn't supposed to be a major piece of the score.

If we reward people who have more pets at the upper levels than the lower levels, then we're simultaneously penalizing people who have lower level pets. That's not in the spirit of what this score was designed to indicate -- it's supposed to be more a reflection of someone's collection -- not someone's leveling progress.

We don't want to deter people from collecting low level pets -- which, if we did as you suggest, could be another way to manipulate the scoring system. That's why pet level doesn't have nearly the weight as simply owning pet X at quality Y.

True, as of it is now level has not a big weight in the formula, it was just a point of exploiting. Because who in the right mind would want to level 100 pets to an extra level (lets say out of 400) to gain 1 extra point - the same amount as replacing 1 uncommon with rare .